DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/286102, “GRAPHITE ACTIVE MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR, AND HIGH-CAPACITY SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME FOR HIGH-SPEED CHARGING AND DISCHARGING”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 4/7/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 4/8/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 3/28/24.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I claims 1-10 and 14-19, drawn to an active material or article comprising the active material.
Group II, claim(s) 11-13, drawn to a method of making an active material.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The common technical feature includes at most the graphite active material of claim 1. However, this active material was known in the art at the time of invention (for example, see the teachings of Sudoh -US 2014/0231707 or Shao -US 2021/0391577 as applied to claim 1 below). Since the common technical feature was known at the time of invention, it does not make a contribution over the prior art and cannot be a special technical feature. Therefore, no special technical feature linking all claims exists.
During a telephone conversation with Jihun Kim on 6/2/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-10 and 14-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Potential Rejoinder
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-10 and 14-19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the requirement that the graphite active material has an interlay distance d002 increased by 0.001 Å to 0.003 Å is unclear because there is no frame of reference on which to base the recited increase.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation, “wherein the lithium secondary battery comprising the natural graphite active material as an electrode active material” lacks proper antecedent basis. The claim does not previously establish the active material as an electrode active material and it is unclear if the added word “electrode” implies that this material is possibly different from the previously established “graphite active material” of claim 1. Moreover, “comprising the natural graphite active material” implies that the material may include other constituents, which has not been established by claims 1 or 2.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation, “the lithium secondary battery comprising the graphite active material as an electrode active material” lacks proper antecedent basis. The base claims 1 and 2 do not mention a lithium secondary battery.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation, “wherein the lithium secondary battery comprising the artificial graphite active material as an electrode active material” lacks proper antecedent basis. The base claims 1 and 2 do not mention a lithium secondary battery. Additionally, the recitation “(charging in 30 minutes)” is unclear because it is unclear what if the parenthesis are intended to suggest the limitation to be optional.
Regarding claim 7, the requirement that graphite active material has a BET specific surface area increased by 127% or more is unclear because there is no frame of reference on which to base the recited increase.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sudoh (US 2014/0231707).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 5, Sudoh teaches a graphite active material having an interlayer distance d002 increased by 0.001 Å to 0.003 Å, wherein the artificial graphite active material has an interlayer distance d002 of 3.368 Å to 3.370 Å (paragraph [0027] broadly teaches the graphite having a d002 range of 0.3356 to 0.3375 nm; Example 7 teaches an exemplary value of 0.3368 nm, which falls within the claimed range), wherein the graphite is a natural or artificial graphite (paragraph [0085, 0142-0154]).
It is noted that claim 1 is drawn to a product, not a method. The graphite of Sudoh is found to have an increased interlayer d002 distance because the d002 value is 0.3368 nm, an increased value compared to lower d002 values. The implied step of increasing d002 value is a process step which does not limit the claimed product (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 8-10, 14 and 17, Sudoh remains as applied to claim 1, 2 or 5. Sudoh further teaches a secondary battery including an electrode, wherein the electrode comprises the previously described active material (paragraph [0098]).
Claims 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sudoh (US 2014/0231707) and Kawai (US 2018/0048024).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Sudoh remains as applied to claim 5. Sudoh does not expressly teach wherein the active material has a discharge capacity does not expressly teach wherein the lithium secondary battery comprising the artificial graphite active material as an electrode active material has an initial Coulombic efficiency of 65 to 92%, a discharge capacity per weight of 345 to 360 mAh/g during 0.1 C charging, and a capacity retention of 10 to 45% during 2_C charging (charging in 30 minutes).
However, Sudoh does teach the material having an initial efficiency of 93-95% for inventive Examples and 82-90% for Comparative Examples (Table 1; paragraph [0022]), high discharge capacity at 0.1 C ranging from 327-333 for inventive Examples and 324-355 mAh/g for Comparative Examples (Table 1; paragraph [0022]), and is silent regarding capacity retention at 2 C.
Moreover, a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have understood that factors such as initial discharge capacity, initial efficiency, and capacity retention are interrelated parameters which may be balanced. As support, consider Kawai at paragraph [0248] which describes a battery wherein “initial discharge capacity, the initial efficiency, and the capacity retention rate were in good balance and at good levels”.
Thus, the claimed invention is found to be obvious because the graphite active material possesses a structure which is similar to that claimed, as indicated in base claim 5, and the recited Coulombinc efficiency and discharge capacity appear to be similar to those achieved and/or known by Sudho, and the capacity retention is further known to be correlated and balanced with these properties in order to provide optimization according to the design incentives of the skilled artisan.
Claims 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudoh (US 2014/0231707).
Regarding claims 7, Sudoh remains as applied to claim 1. Sudoh does not expressly teach wherein the graphite active material has a BET specific surface area increased by 127% or more.
However, Sudoh does teach the specific surface area as a result-effective variable which should be optimized to balance parameters such as surface activity, initial efficiency, and binder requirement (paragraph [0035]). Moreover, Sudoh does teach that the BET specific surface area may be selected to lie within a range of 0.5 to 4 m2/g, or more narrowly 0.8 to 1.8 m2/g (paragraph [0035]). The lower upper end of the preferred range, 1.8 m2/g is 125% higher than 0.8 m2/g, close to the claimed range, and the 0.5 to 4 m2/g range has an increase amount extending into the claimed range.
Thus, the claimed range is found to be obvious over Sudhoh because Sudoh i) teaches the specific surface area as an obvious to optimize result-effective variable, and ii) teaches a range of optimization spanning a greater than 125% increase, suggesting a range overlapping the claimed range.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shao (US 2021/0391577).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Shao teaches a natural graphite active material having an interlayer distance d002 increased by 0.001 Å to 0.003 Å (See Table 1, where among the Examples SC0-SC6, some have a d002 value of 0.336 nm, which is 0.001 higher than the d002 value of 0.3359 nm of other examples), wherein the graphite is a natural or artificial graphite (the Examples of Table 1 include foundry cokes, thermally graphitized to provide artificial graphites).
It is noted that claim 1 is drawn to a product, not a method. The graphite of Shao is found to have an increased interlayer d002 distance because an exemplary d002 value is 0.336 nm, an increased value compared to lower d002 values. The implied step of increasing d002 value is a process step which does not limit the claimed product (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 4, Shao remains as applied to claim 2. Shao further teaches wherein the lithium secondary battery comprising the graphite active material as an electrode active material has a discharge capacity per weight of 320 mAh/g or more during 1 C (charging in 1 hour) charging, and enables a 1 C charge cycle (Table 2 includes examples having discharge efficiency of more than 320 mAh/g at 1 C).
Regarding claim 8-10, 14 and 16, Shao remains as applied to claim 1, 2 or 4. Shao further teaches a secondary battery including an electrode, wherein the electrode comprises the previously described active material (paragraphs [0010-0011]).
Claims 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US 2021/0391577).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Shao remains as applied to claim 1. Shao does not expressly teach wherein the lithium secondary battery comprising the natural graphite active material as an electrode active material has an initial Coulombic efficiency of 90 to 95%, a discharge capacity per weight of 360 mAh/g or more during 0.1 C charging, and a capacity retention rate of 30 to 99% during 2_C charging.
However, Shao does teach exemplary discharge capacity values in the 360s at 0.2 C (see Table 2), Coulombic efficiency values in the ~94-96% range (see Table 2), and at least one reported capacity retention value of 98% at 1 C (paragraph [0091]).
Thus, the suggestion of Shao appears to be close to the claimed parameters, including overlapping ranges, such that the claimed invention is found to be obvious for being close to and/or overlapping the value suggested by the prior art (MPEP 2144.05), particularly noting the similarity in the materials, as claimed. If it is applicant’s position that the Shao active materials would have substantially different properties such that the claimed invention is nonobvious, appropriate supporting evidence is required.
It is noted that claim 3 requires a secondary battery comprising natural graphite, but the Examples of Shao appear to be artificial graphites. However, Shao further teaches that the carbon source may include “at least one” of foundry coke, artificial graphite, and natural graphite among carbon sources. Thus, the scope includes mixtures including natural graphite, readable on the “comprising the natural graphite” limitation.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Jeong (KR 101384817 B1) teaches a graphene having sporadically increased interlayer spacing for improving ion transport;
Kaneda (US 2003/0129494) teaches an active material comprising d002 spacing within the claimed range;
Nishimura (US 2012/0045642) teaches an active material comprising d002 spacing within the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights