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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 12/10/25 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/25/23, 12/1223, 8/23/24, and 5/23/25 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/25/23. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0187041 A1 (“US ’041”) in view of JP 2018-139171 A (“JP ’171”) and Hu et al., Integrated Imaging Study (2021).
As to Claim 1:
US ’041 discloses:
a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, wherein the negative electrode active material includes artificial graphite particles ([0021]–[0025]);
the artificial graphite particles include a plurality of internal voids (intraparticle void regions) formed during granulation and graphitization ([0030]–[0034], [0580]);
the internal voids are evaluated using cross-sectional scanning electron microscopic (SEM) images of the graphite particles ([0133], [0580]);
the cross-sectional SEM images are binarized to distinguish void regions from solid regions, and that the evaluation is performed using a plurality of arbitrarily selected particles, for example, 30 randomly selected particles ([0133], [0601]); and
artificial graphite particles having internal voids and SEM-based binarized image analysis of multiple arbitrarily selected particles.
However, US ’041 does not expressly disclose that the artificial graphite particles have a porosity of 0.7 to 15%, does not disclose performing circular approximation on internal voids having cross-sectional areas of 1000 nm² or more, does not disclose determining circularities of 20 or more internal voids per particle, and does not disclose that the internal voids have an average circularity of 0.1 to 0.6.
JP ’171 discloses artificial graphite particles used as a negative electrode active material and teaches that internal particle structures are quantitatively evaluated by cross-sectional observation and statistical analysis of a plurality of arbitrarily selected particles, with numerical parameters derived from image-based measurements (see Pg. 2-10). JP ’171 thus teaches the concept of applying quantitative, image-based numerical metrics to internal features of artificial graphite particles for battery performance optimization.
Hu et al. further discloses binarization and segmentation of cross-sectional electron microscopic images to extract pore/void regions and teaches performing circular approximation using equivalent circular diameter derived from pore area, as well as determining circularity values (4πA/P²) for a population of pores and calculating average circularity, including circularity ranges overlapping 0.1 to 0.6 (Pg. 3-7; Fig. 3-6). Hu et al. therefore teaches that internal voids observed in cross-sectional electron microscopic images can be filtered by size, approximated as circles, and statistically analyzed to determine average circularity values.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the internal-void evaluation of the artificial graphite particles of US ’041 by applying the quantitative, image-based statistical analysis techniques taught by JP ’171 and the circular approximation and circularity determination methods taught by Hu et al., in order to more precisely characterize internal void morphology of artificial graphite particles for optimizing battery performance, thereby arriving at artificial graphite particles having internal voids characterized by circular approximation and average circularity as recited in Claim 1.
As to Claim 2:
US ’041 further discloses evaluating internal void content using cross-sectional electron microscopic images and quantitative analysis of void regions ([0133], [0580]). Thus, US ’041 teaches artificial graphite particles whose internal void content (porosity) is a result-effective variable relevant to battery performance.
However, US ’041 does not expressly disclose that the artificial graphite particles have a porosity of 8 to 15%, nor does it disclose a specific numerical subrange of porosity expressed as a percentage.
JP ’171 discloses artificial graphite particles used as a negative electrode active material and teaches that internal particle structures are quantitatively evaluated using image-based analysis and numerical parameters derived from internal features, with such parameters being optimized to improve battery performance (see Pg. 2-10). JP ’171 therefore supports that selecting and optimizing numerical internal-structure parameters of artificial graphite particles, including parameters related to internal void content, was known in the art.
Hu et al. further discloses quantitative determination of porosity expressed as a percentage (void volume fraction, VF%) using segmented electron microscopic images, and reports porosity values overlapping the range of 8 to 15%, demonstrating that porosity values within this range are measurable, meaningful, and routinely evaluated using electron-microscopy-based image analysis (Pg. 3-7; Fig. 3-6). Hu et al. thus teaches selecting and reporting porosity values within the claimed subrange.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to select a porosity within the range of 8 to 15% for the artificial graphite particles of US ’041, in view of the teachings of JP ’171 regarding quantitative optimization of internal particle parameters and the teachings of Hu et al. demonstrating that porosity values in this range are routinely measured and selected using electron-microscopy-based analysis, as such selection represents an obvious optimization of a result-effective variable to achieve desired battery performance.
As to Claim 3:
US ’041 further discloses evaluating the internal voids using cross-sectional scanning electron microscopic images, and performing binarization to distinguish void regions from solid regions ([0133], [0580]). US ’041 further teaches that the evaluation is conducted using a plurality of arbitrarily selected particles, such as 30 randomly selected particles, in order to statistically characterize the internal void structure (US ’041 ¶[0601]). Thus, US ’041 teaches artificial graphite particles having internal voids that are statistically evaluated using binarized cross-sectional electron microscopic images.
However, US ’041 does not disclose determining a circularity of the internal voids, nor does it disclose that the internal voids have an average circularity in the range of 0.3 to 0.6.
JP ’171 discloses artificial graphite particles used as a negative electrode active material and teaches that internal particle features are quantitatively evaluated using image-based analysis and numerical parameters derived from internal structures, with such parameters being optimized to improve battery performance (see Pg. 2-10). JP ’171 therefore teaches that numerical shape-related parameters derived from image analysis are appropriate descriptors for internal structures of artificial graphite particles.
Hu et al. further discloses performing binarization and segmentation of cross-sectional electron microscopic images to identify pore or void regions, and calculating circularity (4πA/P²) as a quantitative geometric parameter for such pores. Hu et al. expressly discloses pore circularity values spanning approximately 0.3 to 0.6, and further teaches calculating average circularity values from a population of pores identified in the images (Pg. 3-7; Fig. 3-6). Hu et al. thus demonstrates that circularity values within the claimed range are measurable and known for pore structures analyzed by electron microscopy.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply known quantitative image-analysis techniques for pore geometry, including determining average circularity values as taught by Hu et al., to the statistically evaluated internal voids of the artificial graphite particles disclosed in US ’041, as supported by the quantitative internal-structure evaluation framework taught by JP ’171, thereby arriving at a negative electrode active material in which the internal voids have an average circularity of 0.3 to 0.6.
As to Claim 4:
US ’041 discloses a negative electrode active material including artificial graphite particles for a lithium-ion battery negative electrode ([0021]–[0025]). US ’041 further discloses that the artificial graphite particles are produced by granulation and graphitization processes and that the crystalline structure and defect state of the graphite particles are important for electrochemical performance ([0030]–[0034], [0418]–[0429]). Thus, US ’041 teaches artificial graphite particles whose internal structure and degree of graphitization are relevant material characteristics.
However, US ’041 does not disclose determining a ratio (IG/ID) of a G-band peak intensity (IG) to a D-band peak intensity (ID) by Raman spectroscopy, nor does US ’041 disclose that the artificial graphite particles have an IG/ID ratio of 1.5 to 60.
JP ’171 discloses artificial graphite particles used as a negative electrode active material and expressly teaches evaluating the crystallinity and defect density of the artificial graphite particles using Raman spectroscopy, including determining the G-band peak intensity (IG) and D-band peak intensity (ID) and calculating the IG/ID ratio as a quantitative index of graphitization (see Pg. 2-10).). JP ’171 further discloses IG/ID values that overlap the range of 1.5 to 60, thereby teaching the claimed numerical range.
Hu et al. further confirms that Raman spectroscopy and IG/ID analysis are conventional techniques for characterizing carbonaceous and graphitic materials and correlating Raman-derived parameters with structural order and material properties (Pg. 3-7; Fig. 3-6). Hu et al. thus reinforces that Raman IG/ID is a well-established metric for evaluating graphitic materials.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to evaluate the artificial graphite particles of US ’041 using Raman spectroscopy and to determine the IG/ID ratio as taught by JP ’171 and supported by the conventional characterization practices described by Hu et al., in order to characterize and optimize the crystallinity and defect density of the graphite particles for battery performance, thereby arriving at a negative electrode active material in which the artificial graphite particles have an IG/ID ratio of 1.5 to 60.
As to Claim 5:
US ’041 further discloses that the artificial graphite particles are produced by granulation and graphitization processes and that the crystalline structure and degree of graphitization of the graphite particles affect electrochemical performance ([0030]–[0034], [0418]–[0429]). Thus, US ’041 teaches artificial graphite particles for which crystallographic characteristics are relevant material properties.
However, US ’041 does not disclose determining an interplanar distance d002 of a (002) plane of a graphite crystal by powder X-ray diffraction analysis, nor does US ’041 disclose that the artificial graphite particles have a d002 value in the range of 3.36 Å to 3.38 Å.
JP ’171 discloses artificial graphite particles used as a negative electrode active material and expressly teaches evaluating the crystalline structure of the artificial graphite particles by powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), including determining the interplanar distance d002 of the graphite (002) plane as an index of graphitization (see Pg. 2-10). JP ’171 further discloses d002 values that overlap the range of 3.36 Å to 3.38 Å, corresponding to well-graphitized artificial graphite particles suitable for battery applications.
Hu et al. further confirms that X-ray diffraction is a conventional technique for characterizing crystalline carbonaceous materials and correlating interplanar spacing with material properties, thereby reinforcing that XRD-based determination of d002 is a routine and well-established analytical method (Pg. 3-7; Fig. 3-6).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to evaluate the crystalline structure of the artificial graphite particles of US ’041 using powder X-ray diffraction as taught by JP ’171, and to select artificial graphite particles having a d002 interplanar spacing in the range of 3.36 Å to 3.38 Å, as such a range represents a conventional and desirable degree of graphitization for negative electrode active materials, thereby arriving at the negative electrode active material.
As to Claim 6:
US ’041 further discloses a secondary (lithium-ion) battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0020]–[0025]). US ’041 further discloses that the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material comprising artificial graphite particles ([0021]–[0025], [0030]–[0034]). Thus, US ’041 teaches a secondary battery having a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and an electrolyte, wherein the negative electrode includes an artificial-graphite-based negative electrode active material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723