DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/037,267, filed 5/16/2023, which is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2021/016929, filed 11/17/2021, which claims priority to Korean application KR10-2020-0153656, filed 11/17/2020.
Claims 1-10 and 17 are pending; Claim 10 is examined herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 6/18/2026, the rejections of record are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the applicant of the following reference, which is not currently applied in a rejection.
Guoping, et al. (Solid State Ionics 176 (2005) 905-909): This reference teaches a negative electrode active material comprising a graphite core and a shell of carbonized material, wherein the Raman D and G bands are measured.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0089784 A1) in view of Sotowa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0092428 A1).
In reference to Claim 10, Cho teaches a negative active material for a lithium secondary battery (paragraphs [0013]-[0028]).
The negative active material of Cho comprises a base material for a negative active material, corresponding to the graphite core material (paragraph [0022]).
It is the Examiner’s position that the graphite material of Han meets the structural limitations of “graphitized coke,” because it is a graphite material.
The structural features imparted by the limitation “graphitized coke” are considered to include “graphite.”
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The negative active material of Cho comprises a carbonized coating layer coating the base material.
Cho does not teach that the coating layer is necessarily a soft carbon.
However, he teaches that soft carbon is one of several materials suitable for use as the coating material of his invention (paragraph [0017]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have used soft carbon as the coating material of the negative active material of Cho, because he teaches that this is a suitable material for the coating material of his invention.
Cho teaches that the carbonized coating is included in a weight range of 0.1-30 wt% of the active material particles (paragraph [0018]), and that the graphite core is 60-99 wt% of the active material particles (paragraph [0027]). Therefore, Cho teaches that the carbon coating is included in a weight range of 0.001-50 parts by weight, with respect to 100 weight parts of the base material
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the carbonized coating layer is included in an amount of 1-5 weight parts with respect to 100 weight parts of the base material.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “1-5 weight parts with respect to 100 weight parts of the base material for the active material” lies within the taught range of 0.001-50 parts by weight, with respect to 100 weight parts of the base material.
Cho teaches that the negative active material of his invention has an Id/Ig Raman measurement of 0.31 or more (paragraph [0016]). The Raman measurement is described further in paragraphs [0109]-[0111]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the negative active material has an Id/Ig of Raman spectrum measurement of 0.3-0.45, and the Id is…wavelength 1575 cm-1.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “0.3-0.45” overlaps with the taught range of “greater than 0.31.”
Cho is silent regarding the specific surface area of the material of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the active material has a specific surface area of 1.1-2.6 m2/g.
To solve the same problem of providing a graphite-based particulate active material for a lithium ion battery, Sotowa teaches that carbon materials suitable for this purpose should have a specific surface area of 0.2-3 m2/g (paragraph [0108]). Sotowa teaches that particles with this surface area range provide the benefit of good surface activity and coulombic efficiency (paragraph [0108]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the negative active material of modified Cho to have a surface area of 0.2-3 m2/g, based on the teachings of Sotowa.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the negative active material has a specific surface area of 1.1-2.6 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 MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “1.1-2.6 m2/g” lies within the taught range of 0.2-3 m2/g.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, et al. (Carbon 94 (2015) 432-438, and its Supplemental Information), as evidenced by Wang, et al. (Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 149 (4) A499-A503 (2002)), and in view of Sotowa, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0092428 A1).
In reference to Claim 10, Han teaches a negative active material for a lithium secondary battery, corresponding to the material made from synthetic graphite coated in coal tar pitch with a softening point of 20°C (section 2.1, page 433).
The negative active material of Han comprises a base material, corresponding to the synthetic graphite material described in section 2.1 (page 433).
It is the Examiner’s position that the graphite material of Han meets the structural limitations of “graphitized coke,” because it is a graphite material.
The structural features imparted by the limitation “graphitized coke” are considered to include “graphite.”
The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The negative active material of Han comprises a carbonized coating layer coating the base material, corresponding to the coating layer formed by carbonizing coal tar pitch with a softening point of 20°C on the surface of the graphite core particles (section 2.1, page 433).
It is the Examiner’s position that the coating layer is a “soft carbon,” because it is a carbon coating made from heating a coal tar pitch with a softening point of 20°C. The instant specification recognizes that heating coal tar pitch with softening points below 50°C produces the coatings of the instant invention (page 8 of the as-filed specification).
Fig. S2 of Han teaches that the negative active material has an Id/Ig of Raman spectrum measurement of 0.46, wherein Id is the peak intensity measured at a wavelength of 1360 cm-1 and Ig is the peak intensity measured at a wavelength of 1580 cm-1.
This does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the negative active material has an Id/Ig of Raman spectrum measurement of 0.300-0.450, wherein Id is the peak intensity measured at a wavelength of 1350 cm-1 and Ig is the peak intensity measured at a wavelength of 1575 cm-1.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that this is sufficiently close to the claimed range of measurement wavelengths and peak ratios to render the claimed limitations obvious.
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Han is silent regarding the mass of the carbonized coating layer. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that the carbonized coating layer is present in an amount from 1-5 weight parts, with respect to 100 weight parts of the base material.
However, evidentiary reference Wang teaches that the weight percentage of carbon coatings Id/Ig ratio (which he refers to as “R”) can be correlated to the weight percentage of carbon coatings within the coated particles (“Correlation of the Carbon-Coating Weight Portion to Raman Spectra” and Fig. 6, pages A501-A502).
Table II and Fig. 6 teach that Id/Ig ratios between 0.267-0.751 correspond to carbon coating weight percentages of 0-4.64 wt%, and that an Id/Ig ratio of 0.46, which lies within that range, corresponds to a weight percentage around 1 wt%.
Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that, based on the disclosure of Wang, there is reasonable basis to conclude that the material of Han, which has an Id/Ig ratio of 0.46, teaches the limitations of Claim 10 regarding the wt% of the carbon coating.
Han is silent regarding the specific surface area of the material of his invention. Therefore, he does not teach that the active material has a specific surface area of 1.1-2.6 m2/g.
To solve the same problem of providing a graphite-based particulate active material for a lithium ion battery, Sotowa teaches that carbon materials suitable for this purpose should have a specific surface area of 0.2-3 m2/g (paragraph [0108]). Sotowa teaches that particles with this surface area range provide the benefit of good surface activity and coulombic efficiency (paragraph [0108]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the negative active material of modified Han to have a surface area of 0.2-3 m2/g, based on the teachings of Sotowa.
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 10, wherein the negative active material has a specific surface area of 1.1-2.6 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 MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the instant case, the claimed range of “1.1-2.6 m2/g” lies within the taught range of 0.2-3 m2/g.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejections presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of modified Han and modified Cho.
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights