DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 is amended, Claims 3 and 8 are canceled and Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 9-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2019194554 A1 - US 20210126248 A1 Cited for Reference), hereinafter "Choi" in view of Sonobe et al. (US 20170062828 A1), hereinafter “Sonobe”. Choi and Sonobe et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 1, Choi et al. discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (Choi, [0070]). Choi et al. also discloses a first negative electrode active material containing a first artificial graphite and an amorphous carbon layer disposed on the surface of the first artificial graphite, and a second negative electrode active material containing second artificial graphite and having no carbon layer on the surface of the second graphite (Choi, Abstract). Choi et al. further discloses a conductive material, and a binder (Choi, [0076]), wherein the weight ratio of the first negative electrode active material to the second negative electrode active material is 6:4 (Choi, [0051]), which anticipates the claimed range. While Choi et al. discloses that when the first and second negative electrode active material particles are contained at the weight ratio described above, the change in the specific surface area of the active material during rolling is further reduced (Choi, [0051]), it is silent as to the measured BET of the negative electrode layer.
Sonobe et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode composition comprising artificial graphite wherein the measured BET of the negative electrode layer is 1.5 m2/g in one example and 1.7 m2/g in another (Sonobe, [0226]), Table 10), which anticipates the claimed range. Sonobe discloses the advantage of such an electrode is reduced internal resistance and excellent life characteristics (Sonobe, [0019]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a negative electrode layer with reduced specific surface area as disclosed in Choi which is within a measured range as taught in Sonobe et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Sonobe and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
In regard to Claim 4, Choi in view of Sonobe et al. discloses the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Choi et al. also discloses wherein the amorphous carbon layer comprises an amorphous carbon derived from coal-containing pitch or petroleum- containing pitch (Choi, [0060-0061]).
In regard to Claims 6 and 9, Choi in view of Sonobe et al. discloses the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Choi et al. also discloses wherein the particle diameter D.sub.50 of the first negative electrode active material particles is in the range of 15 to 27 μm (Choi, [0042]) and the second negative electrode active material particles have an average particle diameter of 13 μm to 25 μm (Choi, [0049]) both of which anticipates the claimed ranges.
In regard to Claim 11, Choi in view of Sonobe et al. discloses the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. Choi et al. also discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising the negative electrode for the lithium secondary battery as defined in claim 1 (Choi, Title).
Claim 2, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2019194554 A1 - US 20210126248 A1 Cited for Reference), hereinafter "Choi" in view of Sonobe et al. (US 20170062828 A1), hereinafter “Sonobe” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 20220393171 A1), hereinafter "Zhou". Choi, Sonobe and Zhou et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 2, Choi in view of Sonobe et al. discloses the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. However, Choi et al. is silent as to the total pore volume of the layer.
According to the original specification total pore volume of the active material layer can be calculated based on the composition of the materials and their specific surface area and porosity but also depends on the calendering/pressing step (Original Specification [0071-0074], all of which can be selected and controlled by the skilled artisan.
Zhou et al. discloses a negative electrode comprising a carbon coated first graphite active material and a second uncoated graphite material (Zhou, Abstract), wherein the first material has a pore volume of 0.01-0.08 and a total pore volume of the negative electrode active material layer is 0.005-0.010 (Zhou, Paragraph [0073, 0076]) which intercepts the claimed range and is taught to achieve the benefit of a side reaction of the material being reduced during the cycling process, thereby improving the cycling performance of the layer (Zhou, Paragraph [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a negative electrode active material layer having a total pore volume of 0.005-0.010 cm3/g as taught in Zhou, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Zhou et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2019194554 A1 - US 20210126248 A1 Cited for Reference), hereinafter "Choi" in view of Sonobe et al. (US 20170062828 A1), hereinafter “Sonobe” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Song et al. (US 20160276657 A1), hereinafter "Song". Choi, Sonobe and Song et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claim 5, Choi in view of Sonobe et al. discloses the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. While Choi et al. discloses an amorphous coated artificial graphite, it is silent as to the wt% of the coating.
Song et al. discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery, comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (Song, Paragraph [0014]), comprising a first negative electrode active material containing first graphite and an amorphous carbon layer disposed on the surface of the first graphite, and a second negative electrode active material containing second graphite and having no carbon layer on the surface of the second graphite (Song, Paragraphs [0029], [0095])). Song et al. also discloses wherein the amorphous carbon layer is present in an amount of 1wt% to 30 wt% based on 100 wt% of a total weight of the first negative electrode active material particles (Song, Paragraph [0038]), which overlaps the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference, as overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. 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.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (WO 2019194554 A1 - US 20210126248 A1 Cited for Reference), hereinafter "Choi" in view of Sonobe et al. (US 20170062828 A1), hereinafter “Sonobe” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Piao et al. (WO2019088672A1 - US 20200185719 A1 Cited for Reference), hereinafter "Piao". Choi, Sonobe and Piao et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely negative electrode materials.
In regard to Claims 7 and 10, Choi in view of Sonobe et al. discloses the negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery according to claim 1. While Choi must provide the artificial first and second graphite’s with some measurable BET specific surface area and Choi discloses that when the first and second negative electrode active material particles are contained at the weight ratio described above, the change in the specific surface area of the active material during rolling is further reduced (Choi, [0051]), it is silent as to the BET of the first and second artificial graphite.
Piao et al. discloses a beneficial negative electrode active material layer comprising a first and second graphite selected from a preferred list which may reasonably both include artificial graphite (Piao, [0020]) and wherein the first negative electrode active material particles have a BET specific surface area of 0.01 mg2/g to 1.9 m2/g (Piao, [0018]) and wherein the second negative electrode active material particles have a BET specific surface area of 0.05 m2/g to 2.6 m2/g (Piao, [0019]), which significantly overlaps the claimed ranges. The advantages of this configuration in Piao is taught as the negative electrode being capable of high-rate charging and quick charging (Piao, [0024]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a first and second artificial graphite as disclosed in Choi using the BET specific surface area of each as taught in Piao as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits in Piao and as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record of independent claim 1 for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Further, the new references cited disclose all of the limitations of amended claim 1 as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights