DETAILED ACTION
(1)
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 . This is the first office action on the merits. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed August 1, 2023, is entered. Applicant amended claims 3-16. No new matter is entered.
(2)
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 and 3-16, in the reply filed on March 5, 2026, is acknowledged. Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
(3)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-16 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.
Claim 1 requires graphite particles satisfying x greater than or equal to 2 when a compressive load required to consolidate to 1.7 g/cm3 in autograph measurement is x. This feature of the claimed invention is unclear as to what is required. Are the graphite particles consolidated or are they only required to be capable of being consolidated? Claim 1 is also unclear as to whether the “autograph measurement” is a standardized measurement or if this is unique to Applicant’s disclosure. Appropriate clarification is required. The awkward phrasing of claim 1 also renders the claim scope unclear as to how the particle size at a cumulative volume should be interpreted. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 5 is unclear as to whether the obtained peak intensities are obtained from Raman spectroscopy or some other form of measurement. Correction is required to properly determine the claim scope.
Claim 6 is unclear as to whether the obtained peak intensities are obtained from Raman spectroscopy or some other form of measurement. Correction is required to properly determine the claim scope.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite because their scope is unascertainable to one ordinarily skilled in the art. Claims 3-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
(4)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (EP 3 879 601), which is cited in Applicant’s information disclosure statement.
With respect to claim 1, Examiner notes that the claim is a product-by-process claim. “If the product in the product-by-process 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the claim is a product-by-process limitation to the extent the specific compression technique and the specific diameter measuring technique are processes.
Shen teaches a negative electrode material for a lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract and Paragraph 10) comprising artificial graphite (Abstract) consolidated to a density of 1.65 g/cm3 to 1.85 g/cm3, which is within the claimed range, at a pressure (compressive load) of 2000 kg (Paragraphs 43-44), which is approximately 10 kN/cm2 (Paragraph 65), meaning x is within the claimed range of being greater than or equal to 2.
Shen further teaches the D50 particle size (cumulative volume from a small diameter side of a volume-based particle distribution that reaches 50%) is between 12 to 22 microns, which is within the claimed range. Paragraphs 23 and 58. Accordingly, when y is set to 17, Formula (1) is 103.18, which is within the claimed range.
Finally, Shen teaches the graphitization degree is 92-94%, which is within the claimed range. Claim 7.
With respect to claim 4, Shen does not require a low crystalline carbon coating on the face of the graphite particle (entire document) and specifically teaches that additional steps are required to obtain a carbon coating (Paragraph 108), meaning Shen’s graphite particles are within the scope of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 5, Shen teaches the ID/IG ratio is less than or equal to 0.25, which is within the claimed range, wherein the ID is the peak D at the position of 1300 to 1400 cm-1 and the IG is the peak G at the position of 1580 to 1620 cm-1 measured vis laser Raman spectroscopy. Paragraphs 47 and 48.
With respect to claim 7, Shen teaches the D10 particle size is 6 microns, which is within the claimed range. Paragraph 35.
With respect to claim 11, Shen teaches the BET specific surface area is 0.8 to 1.5 m2/g, which is within the claimed range. Paragraph 31.
With respect to claim 12, Shen teaches the D90/D10 of the particle size is 4.5, which is calculated based on the formula and information in claim 6, the D50 particle size being as high as 22 microns and the D10 particle size being 6 microns. Paragraphs 35, 36, 39 and claim 6.
With respect to claim 13, Shen teaches the artificial graphite is produced by granulating green petroleum coke, meaning the graphite comprises composite particles in which a plurality of graphite particles are gathered or bound together. Example 1.
With respect to claims 14, 15 and 16, Shen teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising the negative electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery, as discussed above, a positive electrode and an electrolytic solution, wherein the negative electrode material comprises a binder and solvent and is in the form a negative electrode material layer on a current collector. Paragraphs 10, 19-23, 53, 67-78 and 82-86.
(5)
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 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (EP 3 879 601) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (EP 3 780 184).
With respect to claim 6, Shen teaches the ID/IG ratio is less than or equal to 0.25, which is within the claimed range, wherein the ID is the peak D at the position of 1300 to 1400 cm-1 and the IG is the peak G at the position of 1580 to 1620 cm-1 measured vis laser Raman spectroscopy. Paragraphs 47 and 48.
Shen is silent as to whether a low-crystallinity carbon coating is present on the graphite particle surface.
However, Tsuchiya, which deals with graphite particles, teaches a low-crystallinity carbon coating is provided thereon to improve the input-output characteristics of the lithium ion battery. Paragraph 67.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to similarly modify Shen’s graphite particles because Tsuchiya teaches doing so improves the input-output characteristics of the lithium ion battery.
With respect to claims 8, 9 and 10, Shen teaches the graphite particles but is silent as to the 0, 30 and 250 tap density.
However, Tsuchiya teaches the industry standard for tap density is 250 times, wherein a density between 0.70 to 1.30 g/cm3, preferably 0.90 to 1.10 g/cm3, is the optimal range for obtaining a battery with a high degree of capacity and a highly densified electrode and the electrode material is not susceptible to electrolyte permeation. Paragraphs 35-38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the graphite particles to have a tap density within the optimal range because Tsuchiya teaches doing so obtains a battery with a high degree of capacity and a highly densified electrode and the electrode material is not susceptible to electrolyte permeation.
Furthermore, regarding the tap density requirements of claim 8 and 9, which can be considered intermediary density measurements, Examiner notes that the courts have held that "a compound and all its properties are mutually inseparable," In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381 (CCPA 1963). Additionally, as per the MPEP, the "products of identical chemical compositions cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present." MPEP 2112.01 (internal citation omitted). In this case, modified Shen teaches the final measured tap density and graphite particles within the scope of the claimed invention, as explained above, meaning the properties and associated intermediary densities are present.
(6)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
KR 102124948 B1, which is cited by Applicant in the information disclosure statement, teaches artificial graphite particles and specifically teaches a peak intensity ratio of I002 to I110 of 200 to 500, wherein the measurement is for artificial graphite having a scaly structure. Machine translation, Page 8, Third paragraph. However, the reference teaches a graphitization treatment for the artificial graphite in general, but does not teach or fairly suggest the artificial graphite has the required degree of graphitization, as required in claim 1. Accordingly, the reference fails to teach or fairly suggest a graphite particle within the scope of claim 1 and there is no expectation of success that modifying the process by which the graphite particles are obtained in Shen to exhibit this property would obtain a graphite particle within the scope of the claimed invention.
(7)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI S MEKHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7597. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 am to 5:00 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ELI S MEKHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights