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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/19/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner notes the following amendments made to the claims:
Claims 1 and 7 amended
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, by further amending the claim to limit the range of interplanar spacing, the previously applied prior art is overcome Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamada (US 20180013146 A1), which teaches the desired interplanar spacing, particle size, BET surface area, and base carbon material as the instant specification and claims 1 and 7. Therefore, the teachings of Yamada would not only meet the amended limitations of claim 1 and 7 regarding the interplanar spacing, but would also present a case of inherency regarding the spring-back ratio, as a composition found in Yamada would have all the same parameters as that of the instant application, and therefore would also have the same spring-back ratio.
The dependent claims 2-6 are rejected in view of Yamada and previously presented prior art Sotowa, and since no arguments were presented other than the dependency of these claims on claim 1, the arguments are considered moot given the updated rejection for claim 1 to account for the amendments. There is currently not considered to be any allowable subject matter present in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20180013146 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches all of the following elements:
A negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery, the negative electrode comprising a negative-electrode active material (“When using the composite carbon material of the invention A as a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, it is possible to stably provide a lithium secondary battery which has high capacity and is excellent in filling properties, initial efficiency, and productivity with efficiency.” Yamada [0100])
and a solid electrolyte, (“Examples of the electrolyte (may be referred to as “electrolytic solution”), which can be used, include … an electrolyte in a gel shape, a rubber shape, or a solid sheet shape that is obtained by adding an organic polymer compound and the like into the non-aqueous electrolytic solution.” Yamada [0551]. In the case where a solid electrolyte were used, the battery would be an all-solid state battery, and the above limitations would be met.)
the negative-electrode active material comprising a carbon material that has an interplanar spacing (d002) of from 0.340 nm to less than 0.350 nm, (“In the graphite particles (A), an interplanar spacing d.sub.002 of a (002) plane, which is measured by X-ray diffraction, is preferably 0.36 nm or less, more preferably 0.345 nm or less, and still more preferably 0.341 nm or less.” Yamada [0171])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.36nm or less for the interplanar spacing of the carbon material encompasses the claimed range of 0.340-0.350nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a volume average particle size of 12 um or more, (“In an embodiment (for example, the invention A, the invention B, and the invention C, but there is no limitation thereto) of the invention, the average particle size d50 of the graphite particles (A) is preferably 1 to 60 μm, more preferably 3 to 30 μm, and still more preferably 5 to 15 μm.” Yamada [0159])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-60um for the average particle size of the carbon material overlaps the claimed range of 12um or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a BET specific surface area based on nitrogen adsorption of 1.8 m2/g or more, (“Examples of the graphite particle (A) include natural graphite, artificial graphite, and the like.” Yamada [0149], “ “A BET specific surface area of the natural graphite is typically in a range of 1 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 2 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 30 m.sup.2/g or less, and preferably 15 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0506] and “A BET specific surface area of the artificial graphite is typically in a range of 0.5 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 1.0 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 8 m.sup.2/g or less, preferably 6 m.sup.2/g or less, and more preferably 4 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0510])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5m2/g-30m2/g for the BET specific surface area of a carbon material (natural or artificial graphite) overlaps the claimed range of 1.8m2/g or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and a spring-back ratio of 13% or more, wherein the spring-back ratio of the carbon material is measured by a method comprising: loading 3.000+0.005 grams of the carbon material into a cylindrical mold with a diameter of 15.0mm, pressurizing the carbon material in a uniaxial manner with an autograph until a density of the carbon material reaches 1.65 g/cm3, reducing an amount of a pressure to ON and maintaining the carbon material at this state for 30 seconds, pressurizing the carbon material with an autograph, measuring a density of the carbon material pafter (g/cm3) when an amount of a pressure reaches 2N, and calculating the spring-back ratio of the carbon material by the following equation: Spring-back ratio (%) = {(l.65-patter)/l.65}X 100. (By using a carbon material which has the same interplanar spacing, average particle size, BET surface area, and starting carbon material as that of the instant specification, the thickness recovery rate would be an inherent property of the material. Yamada teaches a carbon particle (A), which can have:
an interplanar spacing of 0.345, (“In the graphite particles (A), an interplanar spacing d.sub.002 of a (002) plane, which is measured by X-ray diffraction, is preferably 0.36 nm or less, more preferably 0.345 nm or less, and still more preferably 0.341 nm or less.” Yamada [0171])
a D50 value of 16.2um, (“In an embodiment (for example, the invention A, the invention B, and the invention C, but there is no limitation thereto) of the invention, the average particle size d50 of the graphite particles (A) is preferably 1 to 60 μm, more preferably 3 to 30 μm, and still more preferably 5 to 15 μm.” Yamada [0159])
a BET specific surface area of 2.4 m2/g, (“Examples of the graphite particle (A) include natural graphite, artificial graphite, and the like.” Yamada [0149], “ “A BET specific surface area of the natural graphite is typically in a range of 1 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 2 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 30 m.sup.2/g or less, and preferably 15 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0506] and “A BET specific surface area of the artificial graphite is typically in a range of 0.5 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 1.0 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 8 m.sup.2/g or less, preferably 6 m.sup.2/g or less, and more preferably 4 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0510])
and is produced from a coal-based coke material (“Here, the bulk mesophase artificial graphite particles represent artificial graphite particles which are manufactured by graphitizing coke, which is obtained by subjecting a pitch raw material such as coal-tar pitch and petroleum pitch to a heat treatment, at a predetermined temperature.” Yamada [0150]
which is heat treated at a temperature in a range which includes 1000 C (“In the manufacturing method of the invention, with regard to the compositing, for example, the graphite particles (A) and the graphite particles (B) may be composited, and a bulk mesophase carbon material (green coke obtained by subjecting a pitch raw material to a heat treatment at 400° C. to 600° C. or calcined coke obtained by additionally subjecting the green coke to a heat treatment at 800° C. to 1800° C.)” Yamada [0434])
By producing a carbon material with all of these characteristics, the material of Yamada would have all of the exact same parameters of Example 2 in Table 1 of the instant specification page 20, and therefore would inherently have the same spring-back ratio. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Regarding claim 2, Yamada teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon material has a volume average particle size of from 12 um to 30 um. (“In an embodiment (for example, the invention A, the invention B, and the invention C, but there is no limitation thereto) of the invention, the average particle size d50 of the graphite particles (A) is preferably 1 to 60 μm, more preferably 3 to 30 μm, and still more preferably 5 to 15 μm.” Yamada [0159])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-60um for the average particle size of the carbon material encompasses the claimed range of 12um or more and 30um or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Yamada teaches all of the following elements:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the carbon material has a BET specific surface area based on a nitrogen adsorption capacity of from 1.8 m2/g to 10 m2/g. (“Examples of the graphite particle (A) include natural graphite, artificial graphite, and the like.” Yamada [0149], “ “A BET specific surface area of the natural graphite is typically in a range of 1 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 2 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 30 m.sup.2/g or less, and preferably 15 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0506] and “A BET specific surface area of the artificial graphite is typically in a range of 0.5 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 1.0 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 8 m.sup.2/g or less, preferably 6 m.sup.2/g or less, and more preferably 4 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0510])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5m2/g-30m2/g for the BET specific surface area of a carbon material (natural or artificial graphite) encompasses the claimed range of 1.8m2/g or more and 10 m2/g or less for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Yamada teaches all of the following elements:
An all-solid-state battery, comprising the negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, a positive electrode, and a solid electrolyte layer that is disposed between the negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery and the positive electrode. (“Basic configuration of the non-aqueous secondary battery, particularly, a lithium ion secondary battery is the same as that of a lithium ion secondary battery that is known in the related art. Typically, a positive electrode and a negative electrode which are capable of absorbing and releasing lithium ions, and an electrolyte are provided. The negative electrode is obtained by using the carbon material of an embodiment of the invention, or the carbon material that is manufactured by a manufacturing method of an embodiment of the invention.” Yamada [0544]. If the electrolyte is solid electrolyte, as is provided as an option in Yamada, then all of the limitations of claim 6 would be met.)
Regarding claim 7, Yamada teaches all of the following elements:
A negative-electrode active material, (“When using the composite carbon material of the invention A as a negative electrode active material for a non-aqueous secondary battery, it is possible to stably provide a lithium secondary battery which has high capacity and is excellent in filling properties, initial efficiency, and productivity with efficiency.” Yamada [0100])
consisting of a carbon material that has an interplanar spacing (d002) of from 0.340 nm to less than 0.350 nm, (“In the graphite particles (A), an interplanar spacing d.sub.002 of a (002) plane, which is measured by X-ray diffraction, is preferably 0.36 nm or less, more preferably 0.345 nm or less, and still more preferably 0.341 nm or less.” Yamada [0171])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.36nm or less for the interplanar spacing of the carbon material encompasses the claimed range of 0.340-0.350nm for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a volume average particle size of 12 um or more, (“In an embodiment (for example, the invention A, the invention B, and the invention C, but there is no limitation thereto) of the invention, the average particle size d50 of the graphite particles (A) is preferably 1 to 60 μm, more preferably 3 to 30 μm, and still more preferably 5 to 15 μm.” Yamada [0159])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 1-60um for the average particle size of the carbon material overlaps the claimed range of 12um or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
a BET specific surface area based on nitrogen adsorption of 1.8 m2/g or more, (“Examples of the graphite particle (A) include natural graphite, artificial graphite, and the like.” Yamada [0149], “ “A BET specific surface area of the natural graphite is typically in a range of 1 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 2 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 30 m.sup.2/g or less, and preferably 15 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0506] and “A BET specific surface area of the artificial graphite is typically in a range of 0.5 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 1.0 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 8 m.sup.2/g or less, preferably 6 m.sup.2/g or less, and more preferably 4 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0510])
The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art range of 0.5m2/g-30m2/g for the BET specific surface area of a carbon material (natural or artificial graphite) overlaps the claimed range of 1.8m2/g or more for the same parameter. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
and a spring-back ratio of 13% or more, wherein the spring-back ratio of the carbon material is measured by a method comprising: loading 3.000+0.005 grams of the carbon material into a cylindrical mold with a diameter of 15.0 mm, pressurizing the carbon material in a uniaxial manner with an autograph until a density of the carbon material reaches 1.65 g/cm3,reducing an amount of a pressure to ON and maintaining the carbon material at this state for 30 seconds, pressurizing the carbon material with an autograph, measuring a density of the carbon material pafter (g/cm3) when an amount of a pressure reaches 2N, and calculating the spring-back ratio of the carbon material by the following equation: Spring-back ratio (%) = {(1.65-pater)/1.651 X 100. (By using a carbon material which has the same interplanar spacing, average particle size, BET surface area, and starting carbon material as that of the instant specification, the thickness recovery rate would be an inherent property of the material. Yamada teaches a carbon particle (A), which can have:
an interplanar spacing of 0.345, (“In the graphite particles (A), an interplanar spacing d.sub.002 of a (002) plane, which is measured by X-ray diffraction, is preferably 0.36 nm or less, more preferably 0.345 nm or less, and still more preferably 0.341 nm or less.” Yamada [0171])
a D50 value of 16.2um, (“In an embodiment (for example, the invention A, the invention B, and the invention C, but there is no limitation thereto) of the invention, the average particle size d50 of the graphite particles (A) is preferably 1 to 60 μm, more preferably 3 to 30 μm, and still more preferably 5 to 15 μm.” Yamada [0159])
a BET specific surface area of 2.4 m2/g, (“Examples of the graphite particle (A) include natural graphite, artificial graphite, and the like.” Yamada [0149], “ “A BET specific surface area of the natural graphite is typically in a range of 1 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 2 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 30 m.sup.2/g or less, and preferably 15 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0506] and “A BET specific surface area of the artificial graphite is typically in a range of 0.5 m.sup.2/g or greater and preferably 1.0 m.sup.2/g or greater. In addition, the BET specific surface area is typically in a range of 8 m.sup.2/g or less, preferably 6 m.sup.2/g or less, and more preferably 4 m.sup.2/g or less.” Yamada [0510])
and is produced from a coal-based coke material (“Here, the bulk mesophase artificial graphite particles represent artificial graphite particles which are manufactured by graphitizing coke, which is obtained by subjecting a pitch raw material such as coal-tar pitch and petroleum pitch to a heat treatment, at a predetermined temperature.” Yamada [0150]
which is heat treated at a temperature in a range which includes 1000 C (“In the manufacturing method of the invention, with regard to the compositing, for example, the graphite particles (A) and the graphite particles (B) may be composited, and a bulk mesophase carbon material (green coke obtained by subjecting a pitch raw material to a heat treatment at 400° C. to 600° C. or calcined coke obtained by additionally subjecting the green coke to a heat treatment at 800° C. to 1800° C.)” Yamada [0434])
By producing a carbon material with all of these characteristics, the material of Yamada would have all of the exact same parameters of Example 2 in Table 1 of the instant specification page 20, and therefore would inherently have the same spring-back ratio. See MPEP 2112. II. or Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., for case law regarding the fact that an inherent feature need not be recognized at the relevant time in order for it to still anticipate the feature, which is later recognized).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 20180013146 A1) in view of Sotowa (US 20190305293 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Yamada teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Yamada is silent on the following elements of claim 4:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the negative- electrode active material and the solid electrolyte (negative-electrode active material: solid electrolyte) is from 5:95 to 70:30.
However, Sotowa teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Yamada:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein a mass ratio of the negative- electrode active material and the solid electrolyte (negative-electrode active material: solid electrolyte) is from 5:95 to 70:30. (“In one embodiment of the present invention, the negative electrode includes 35 parts by mass to 45 parts by mass of the negative electrode active material, 45 parts by mass to 55 parts by mass of the solid electrolyte, and 5 parts by mass to 10 parts by mass of the conductive additive.” Sotowa [0054]. In this case, if there were 45 parts per mass of negative electrode active material and 45 parts per mass of solid electrolyte, the ratio would be 1:1 (or 50:50), which would anticipate the claimed range. Even if the negative electrode active material were 35 parts per mass and the solid electrolyte were 55 parts per mass, the ratio would still anticipate the claimed range.)
Sotowa is considered to be analogous to Yamada because they are both within the same field of negative electrodes and/or negative electrode active materials for secondary batteries which can contain a solid electrolyte. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yamada to include the solid electrolyte of Sotowa as this would only require the simple substitution of one solid electrolyte for another, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Sotowa additionally cites the benefits of using its solid electrolyte, which further supports the above obviousness argument (“As one method of improving safety of the lithium ion battery, an all-solid-state lithium ion battery using a solid electrolyte, which is non-combustible and free of liquid leakage, instead of an organic liquid electrolyte” Sotowa [0002]) Additionally, both references specify the interlayer spacing, surface area, and particle size, which demonstrates that these parameters are result-effective variable which can be altered to optimize results/characteristics. The range taught by Yamada already overlaps that of the instant claim, but that of Sotowa anticipates it and is therefore included to strengthen the rejection.
By modifying Yamada to include the solid electrolyte of Sotowa, including its material and quantity, there would be no further modification or motivation needed to meet the limitations of claim 6
Regarding claim 5, Yamada teaches all of the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Yamada is silent on the following elements of claim 5:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte.
However, Sotowa teaches all of the elements of claim 4 that are not found in Yamada:
The negative electrode for an all-solid-state battery according to claim 1, wherein the solid electrolyte is a sulfide solid electrolyte. (“In one embodiment of the present invention, for example, an oxide-based solid electrolyte or a sulfide-based solid electrolyte is used as the solid electrolyte.” Sotowa [0062]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use a sulfide solid electrolyte, as that is one of the possible options taught by Sotowa.)
Conclusion
The following references were considered to be relevant in an updated search but were not included in the above rejection:
Spahr (US 20180183060 A1)—teaches a carbon composite material for use in a negative electrode which has an interlayer spacing of 0.340 or above (“Such composite particles are referred to herein as “graphitic composite particles”. In other embodiments, the carbonaceous composite particles are characterized by an interlayer distance c/2 of more than 0.338 nm, more than 0.339 nm, or more than 0.340 nm. Such composite particles are referred to herein as “non-graphitic composite particles”.” Spahr [0052])
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET whose telephone number is (571)272-0156. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6pm except for the first Friday of bi-week.
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, NICHOLAS SMITH can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/BENJAMIN ELI KASS-MULLET/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights