DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, 16-18 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action. Reference not previously cited can be found per the attached PTO-892 for this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3, 8, 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, the unit “mAh/g” indicates the claimed “specific capacity” is a characteristic when the anode active material combines with other components to form an electrochemical device. The anode active material itself does not possess an inherent characteristic associated with “mAh/g”. The claimed characteristic is pre-conditioned, and thus the scope of the claim is not clear, rendering the claim indefinite.
The issue applies similarly to claims 8, 11 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al. (CN 112689919 A, whose family application in English, US 20230052908 A1, is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Jin) and Tang et al. (CN113437293 A, whose family equivalent US 20230261189 A1 is used as an English translation for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Tang).
Regarding claim 1, Jin teaches an anode active material (“negative electrode active material”, [0006]), comprising particles of the anode active material with an AR10 of <0.3 (See “greater than 3.3” in [0006], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/3.3, i.e., <0.3) and an AR50 of <0.5 (See “great than 2” in [0009], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/2, i.e., <0.5), wherein AR10 represents a width to length ratio of the anode active material when a cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 10%, and AR50 represents the width to length ratio of the anode active material when the cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 50%. The claimed ranges of 0.1≤AR10<0.2 and 0.2≤AR50<0.4 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively. 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).
Jin appears silent as to the instantly claimed ratio of Dv99/Dv50. However, it is known in the prior art Tang that the particle size of the anode active material may be controlled to be 1.5≤Dv99/Dv50≤4.5 for the benefit of a desired appearance of the anode and an improved cycling performance of the battery containing the anode material ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin such that Dv99/Dv50 of Jin’s particles of the anode material is in the range of 1.5 to 4.5, as taught by Tang, in order to achieve the benefits/advantages stated above.
Regarding claim 3, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, wherein a specific capacity of the anode active material is greater than or equal to 355 mAh/g ([0008], Tang).
Regarding claim 4, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, wherein the anode active material has a ratio C004/C110 of diffraction peak area of a 004 crystal plane to that of a 110 crystal plane is in the range of 7 to 18 ([0022], Jin). The instantly claimed ratio of 10 to 40 overlaps that of 7 to 18. 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).
Regarding claim 6, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, and the instantly claimed ranges of 0.12≤AR10≤0.19 and 0.24≤AR50≤0.39 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively (See the rejection of claim 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).
Regarding claim 9, Jin teaches a secondary battery (“electrochemical apparatus”, [0107]), comprising a cathode, a separator, an electrolyte, and an anode ([0108], [0102]-[0103]); the anode (“negative electrode”) comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer ([0108]), and the anode active material layer comprises an anode active material ([0108], [0006]), wherein particles of the anode active material have an AR10 of <0.3 (See “greater than 3.3” in [0006], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/3.3, i.e., <0.3) and an AR50 of <0.5 (See “great than 2” in [0009], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/2, i.e., <0.5), wherein AR10 represents a width to length ratio of the anode active material when a cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 10%, and AR50 represents the width to length ratio of the anode active material when the cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 50%. The claimed ranges of 0.1≤AR10<0.2 and 0.2≤AR50<0.4 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively. 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).
Jin appears silent as to the instantly claimed ratio of Dv99/Dv50. However, it is known in the prior art Tang that the particle size of the anode active material may be controlled to be 1.5≤Dv99/Dv50≤4.5 for the benefit of a desired appearance of the anode and an improved cycling performance of the battery containing the anode material ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin such that Dv99/Dv50 of Jin’s particles of the anode material is in the range of 1.5 to 4.5, as taught by Tang, in order to achieve the benefits/advantages stated above.
Regarding claim 11, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 9, wherein a specific capacity of the anode active material is greater than or equal to 355 mAh/g ([0008], Tang).
Regarding claim 12, Jin in view of Tang teaches the secondary battery according to claim 9, wherein the anode active material has a ratio C004/C110 of diffraction peak area of a 004 crystal plane to that of a 110 crystal plane is in the range of 7 to 18 ([0022]). The instantly claimed ratio of 10 to 40 overlaps that of 7 to 18. 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).
Regarding claim 14, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 9, and the instantly claimed ranges of 0.12≤AR10<0.19 and 0.24≤AR50≤0.39 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively (See the rejection of claim 9). 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).
Regarding claim 18, Jin in view of Tang teaches the battery according to claim 9, wherein a ratio C004/C110 of a diffraction peak area of a 004 crystal plane to that of a 110 crystal plane may be, for example, 7 ([0022], Jin), anticipating the instantly claimed range of ≤15.
Regarding claim 20, Jin teaches an electronic device (“electrochemical apparatus”, [0107]), comprising a secondary battery ([0109]), wherein the secondary battery comprises a cathode (“positive electrode” in Jin), a separator, an electrolyte, and an anode ([0108], [0102]-[0103]); the anode (“negative electrode” in Jin) comprises an anode current collector and an anode active material layer ([0108]), and the anode active material layer comprises an anode active material ([0108], [0006]), wherein particles of the anode active material have an AR10 of <0.3 (See “greater than 3.3” in [0006], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/3.3, i.e., <0.3) and an AR50 of <0.5 (See “great than 2” in [0009], corresponding to a width/length ratio of <1/2, i.e., <0.5), wherein AR10 represents a width to length ratio of the anode active material when a cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 10%, and AR50 represents the width to length ratio of the anode active material when the cumulative volume percentage of particles in a volume-based particle size distribution reaches 50%. The claimed ranges of 0.1≤AR10<0.2 and 0.2≤AR50<0.4 lie inside or overlap the ranges of <0.3 and <0.5, respectively. 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).
Jin appears silent as to the instantly claimed ratio of Dv99/Dv50. However, it is known in the prior art Tang that the particle size of the anode active material may be controlled to be 1.5≤Dv99/Dv50≤4.5 for the benefit of a desired appearance of the anode and an improved cycling performance of the battery containing the anode material ([0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin such that Dv99/Dv50 of Jin’s particles of the anode material is in the range of 1.5 to 4.5, as taught by Tang, in order to achieve the benefits/advantages stated above.
Claims 2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Tang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN 112640163 A, whose family application in English, US 20230049766 A1, is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter referred to as Tang-II).
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, but is silent as to an AR90 in the inequations recited in claims 2 and 7. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tang-II discloses an AR90 may be in the range of 0.82 to 0.90 ([0052], [0041]), which may contribute to suppress a swelling of the negative electrode active material layer and thereby minimize a swelling problem of a lithium-ion battery during the cycle process ([0054]). Tang discloses that the AR90 may be 0.82, for example ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have further incorporated the teachings of Tang-II into Jin such that the AR90 of the anode active material of Jin in view of Tang is 0.82 in order to achieve benefits/advantages stated above.
As a result, 0.82 is close to the upper limit of the ranges as claimed in claims 2 and 7. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Jin in view of Tang and Tang-II teaches the anode active material according to claim 2, wherein a specific capacity of the anode active material may be greater than or equal to 355 mAh/g ([0008], Tang).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Tang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ou et al. (CN 109817886 A, whose English machine translation is being employed for citation purposes, hereafter Ou).
Regarding claim 5, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 1, and teaches the anode active material comprises artificial graphite, but does not specify an artificial graphite as instantly claimed.
Ou discloses that an artificial graphite used in an anode can be needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and pitch (bitumen) artificial graphite ([0042]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin in view of Tang such that one or more of needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and bitumen artificial graphite is used as the anode active material of Jin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Tang, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tang-II.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 9, but is silent as to an AR90 in the inequations recited in claims 10 and 15. However, in the same field of endeavor, Tang-II discloses an AR90 may be in the range of 0.82 to 0.90 ([0052], [0041]), which may contribute to suppress a swelling of the negative electrode active material layer and thereby minimize a swelling problem of a lithium-ion battery during the cycle process ([0054]). Tang-II discloses that the AR90 may be 0.82, for example ([0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Tang into Jin such that the AR90 of the anode active material of Jin is 0.82 in order to achieve benefits/advantages stated above.
As a result, 0.82 is close to the upper limit of the range as claimed in claims 10 and 15. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Jin in view of Tang and Tang-II teaches the anode active material according to claim 2, wherein a specific capacity of the anode active material may be greater than or equal to 355 mAh/g ([0008], Tang).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin in view of Tang, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ou.
Regarding claim 13, Jin in view of Tang teaches the anode active material according to claim 9, and teaches the anode active material comprises artificial graphite, but does not specify an artificial graphite as instantly claimed.
Ou discloses that an artificial graphite used in an anode can be needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and pitch (bitumen) artificial graphite ([0042]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have modified Jin such that one or more of needle coke artificial graphite, petroleum coke artificial graphite and bitumen artificial graphite is used as the anode active material of Jin, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Regarding claim 19, Jin teaches the secondary battery according to claim 9, and the instantly claimed limitation represents a characteristic or property of the anode. Since Jin in view of Ou teach the same anode as that of instantly claimed/disclosed (see at least the rejections of claim 9 and 13), the claimed characteristic or property is necessarily present. Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Temmyo et al. (US 20120164530 A1, hereafter Temmyo).
Regarding claim 17, Jin teaches the secondary battery according to claim 9, but is silent as to instantly claimed configuration of the anode active material.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Temmyo discloses that when a long diameter direction of particles of an anode active material, such as graphite, is substantially perpendicular to the surface of the negative electrode current collector (at least: Fig. 1, [0044]), the insertion and extraction of lithium ions can be facilitated and large-current characteristics can be significantly improved ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have incorporated the teachings of Temmyo into Jin such that a long diameter direction of particles of the anode active material of Jin is substantially perpendicular to the current collector in order to facilitate insertion and extraction of lithium ions and significantly improve large-current characteristics.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Applicant’s arguments with respect to 1.5≤Dv99/Dv50≤4.5 are based on the claim amendments. The amended claim limitation has been addressed in the rejections presented above.
2) In response to the argument with respect to the range of 0.82 to 0.90 disclosed by the prior art for AR90, even 0.82 is outside the claimed ranges, the 0.82 is still close to 0.8, the higher limit of the claimed ranges. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough. See MPEP § 2144.05. The rejections are not improper.
3) In response to the argument with respect to claim 19, it is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be substantially the same as a product disclosed by the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the prior art product does not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics attributed to the claimed product, and that it is of no moment whether the rejection is based on § 102 or § 103 since the burden is on the applicant is the same. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705,708 (Fed Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights