DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the December 10th, 2025 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 December 10th 2025:
Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-3 and 6-7 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to modify the open-ended term “comprising” to recite the closed-ended term “consisting of” narrowing the claim scope. Further, the amendment clarifies that the sulfur is in the negative electrode active material.
Claim 2 is amended to clarify that the artificial graphite particles comprise secondary particles.
Claim 3 is amended to adjust dependency from Claim 2 to Claim 1. The amendment overcomes the rejection of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Claims 6 and 7 are amended to adjust dependency from Claim 5 to Claim 1.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure including original Claim 5 and the originally filed specification. No new matter has been added.
Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the invention and the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 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 The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.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 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 The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.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) as further evidenced by Won et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150349335 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 5-7 and 9 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 The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azami et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 2945209 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 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 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 Wakizaka et al. (U.S. Pat. No 20190237763 A1) and 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 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 December 10th, 2025 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments based on Claim 1 as amended. Applicant argues that a negative electrode active material consisting of (as amended) artificial graphite particles is not disclosed by Azami et al. (see pg. 5-6 of the “Remarks”). Applicant cites Examples 20-22, [0041], and Claim 1 of Azami et al. to show that Azami et al. teaches a combination of natural graphite particles as a first carbon and artificial graphite particles as a second carbon.
“’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 carbon in the invention of Azami et al. as Azami et al. explicitly states that the first carbon can be either natural graphite or artificial graphite. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Further, applicant argues that there is no reason to modify the artificial graphite particles of Azami et al. to include the carbon coating layer of Won as applied to Claim 5 since Azami et al. is silent to a carbon coating layer (see pg. 7-8 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)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03.I).
As described in the rejection below, Won teaches that the coating layer improves initial efficiency characteristics, high-rate charge/discharge characteristics and cycle-life characteristics of a battery (Won et al., para. 41), giving reasonable motivation to perform the described modification. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Additionally, 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. 8 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)).
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.”)
Xu et al. (U.S. Pat No. 20190288279 A1) (“Xu 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, 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).
Regarding Claim 1, Azami et al. teaches a negative electrode active material consisting 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 (para. 68-69). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP 2144.05.I). 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).
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 be 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 be 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. 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 In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (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 be 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 13, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Azami et al. teaches a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode active material layer disposed on the negative electrode current collector, wherein the negative electrode active material comprises the negative electrode active material of Claim 1 (para. 22). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 15, Azami et al. is modified by Won et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 13 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 be 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 be 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 be 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 be 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 13 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 be 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