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 1-13 in the reply filed on 19 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
PNG
media_image1.png
35
180
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 contains the following recitation in the step of removing inorganic impurities by - This character appears to be an artifact from translation of the instant application, and it should be amended to recite “leaching or acidifying”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
The term “porous cheap coke” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cheap” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any coke obtained by thermally decomposing petroleum-based heavy oil fractions is considered “cheap coke”.
The term “high purity water” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high purity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, any water which is not specifically described as having been contaminated in any way is considered “high quality”.
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 following is a section from the MPEP 2144.05 concerning the obviousness of ranges:
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The following is a section from the MPEP 2144.04 Part VII. PURIFYING AN OLD PRODUCT:
Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a pure material are nonobvious over the prior art. In reBergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970). Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.
Claims 1-9 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (KR 2019-0054045 cited in IDS, using US Pub 2021/0143425 as an English equivalent for citations below) in view Korea Institute of Energy Research (KR 1998-0016008 cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is attached, hereinafter “KIER”).
In regard to claim 1, An et al. teach a method of preparing an artificial graphite negative electrode material from petcoke for a rechargeable lithium battery, the method comprising: a step of drying petcoke that is porous cheap coke obtained by thermally decomposing petroleum-based heavy oil fractions of oil sand, vacuum residue, fluid catalytic cracking decant oil (FCC-DO), and light cycle oil (LCO) (raw materials from petroleum based residues, through caulking reaction at high pressure and temperature – paragraph [0043]);
a step of comminuting/classifying the petcoke (pulverizing to produce primary particles of particular size – step D10 – paragraph [0042]);
a step of obtaining a primary carbide by performing primary carbonization heat treatment on the petcoke with inorganic impurities removed (heat treatment to remove volatile matter after step S10 at a temperature of 800° C to 1500° C – paragraphs [0048-0049]);
a step of obtaining a secondary carbide by performing secondary carbonization heat treatment on the primary carbide (low temperature heat treatment with binder – paragraphs [0051-0052] followed by carbonizing step at 800-1500° C – paragraph [0058] – step S20); and a step of obtaining artificial graphite by performing graphitization heat treatment on the secondary carbide at a temperature of 2800° C. to 3200° C (step S30 – paragraph [0059]).
Claim 1 differs from An et al. in calling for a step of removing inorganic impurities by leaching acidifying the comminuted/classified petcoke in an acid solution; wherein the artificial graphite includes remaining inorganic impurities of 0.02% by weight to 6% by weight. However, KIER teaches a similar method of forming activated carbon from petcoke (petroleum coke) and the desirability to include a step of removing inorganic impurities by leaching acidifying the comminuted/classified petcoke in a hydrochloric acid solution, because petcoke typically contains impurities such as 5-8 weight percent sulfur and 1-10 weight percent inorganic matter, and the step of acid leaching before heat treatments caused the remaining inorganic impurities to drop to values such as 0.09% by weight in the final product (see pages 1-4 of machine translation and Table 1 for results).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include an acid leaching step prior to the heat treatments in the method of An et al. as such creates a purer final carbon-based (i.e. less than 1 weight percent impurities) final product as taught by KIER. The ranges disclosed by the prior art overlap the temperatures and weight percentages of the instant claims in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 2, An et al. teach the primary carbonization heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 800° C to 1500° C in paragraphs [0048-0049] which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 3, An et al. teach the secondary carbonization heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 800° C. to 1500° C in paragraphs [0058] which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 4 and 5, KIER teach the acid solution is used by diluting 0.3 M hydrochloric acid (Example 1 Page 3 of machine translation) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 6, KIER teach the weight ratio of the petcoke and the caustic soda acid solution 1:3 (see Example 1 and page of translation) which overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
In regard to claim 7, KIER a step of removing remaining acid by performing washing with high-purity water after inorganic impurities are leached into the acid solution (pages 2 and 3 of machine translation – washing with 4 times that of water to remove remaining impurities).
In regard to claim 8, An et al. teach drying is performed at a temperature of 110° C in paragraph [0053].
In regard to claim 9, 13 and 14, An et al. teach further comprising a step of classifying after the graphitization heat treatment, and an average granular diameter D50 of the petcoke after the classifying is 14 to 25 μm (paragraph [0054] – the prior art teaches measuring particles sizes at various steps throughout the process which is considered classifying).
In regard to claim 15, An et al. teach a step of carbon coating after the graphitization heat treatment and before the comminuting/classifying (forming anode material includes mixing with a binder material which includes carbon).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. and KIER as applied to claim 1 above, further in view Walter et al. (US Pub 2019/0031514 newly cited).
In regard to claim 10-12, An et al. teach further comprising a step of kneading using the primary carbide, a binder pitch of which the softening point is 80° C. to 300° C (see paragraph [0052]) but does not disclose including a graphitization accelerant after the primary carbonization heat treatment or molding. However, Walter et al. teach a similar method of forming anode materials by graphitization of petcoke material and the desirability to include a graphitization accelerant such as up to 15 weight percent of a boron (B), boron oxide or boron carbide, and a step of forming by heating/pressing a mixture of the primary carbide, the binder pitch, and the graphitization accelerant in a matrix (mold) after the kneading, such as by extruding the material because such results in a carbon material with a greater degree of graphitization (paragraphs [0014-0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use a boron-based graphitization catalyst in an amount overlapping the claimed range and extrude the graphite in the method of An et al. as such allows for a higher degree of graphitization as taught by Walter et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights