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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites “an average particle diameter”. Is this the same average particle diameter recited in claim 1? A suggested amendment is “wherein the average particle diameter (D50) of the green coke particles is 9 µm to 15 µm, and the average particle diameter (D50) of the calcined coke particles is 3 µm to 8 µm.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20220077466 A1) and optionally further in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20120119138 A1).
Regarding claim 1, An, drawn to negative electrode active material of a lithium secondary battery, discloses a method for preparing a negative electrode active material (para 11), the method comprising: mixing green coke particles (para 16, “carbon raw material including green coke”), calcined coke particles (para 162, “50 wt% of calcined coke is added as a carbon raw material”), and a binder to obtain a mixture (para 16); and graphitizing the mixture through heat treatment to form an artificial graphite particle in the form of a secondary particle (para 16, “"manufacturing a graphite material by graphitizing the carbonized secondary particles").
An does not explicitly disclose primary artificial graphite particles are bonded to each other. However, An teaches manufacturing secondary particles by mixing the primary graphite particles and a binder (para 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, that the binder would bond the primary graphite particles together to form the disclosed secondary particles, as such bonding is predictable result of using a binder for consolidation of the primary particles.
An also does not explicitly disclose an average particle diameter (D50) of the green coke particles is greater than an average particle diameter (D50) of the calcined coke particles. However, as discussed above, An discloses the primary particles as green coke as calcined coke particles (para 16 and 162). Ann further discloses the primary particles may be a comprised of elementary particles “of 5.5 to 8.0 μm” and “large particles that are greater than 8.0 μm and equal to or less than 10.0 μm” (para 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to select the green coke particles having greater D50 than the calcined coke particles as doing such is a predictable selection from a finite number of identified particle size options, with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143 (I).
In order to facilitate compact prosecution, the examiner additionally notes that Ikeda, drawn also to the negative electrode active material of a lithium secondary battery art, discloses “green coke particles with an average particle size of 9.9 μm” and “calcined coke particles with average particle size of 9.5 μm” (para 56-57). As such, and further in view of the disclosure provided above in An, it would have been obvious and predictably successful to select green coke particles having greater D50 than the calcined coke particles. This is even further obvious in light of the fact that Ikeda discloses “sizes of the green coke particles and the calcined coke particles are not particularly limited” (para 35).
Regarding claim 8, Ann discloses the green coke particles and the calcined coke particles are mixed in a weight ratio of 10:90 to 90:10 (para 137 and 162).
Regarding claim 9, Ann discloses “for 100 parts by weight of the primary particles, the binder may be included at 2 to 20 parts by weight" (para 24). Ann also discloses “5 parts by weight of the pitch [binder]… is mixed to the obtained 100 parts by weight of the primary particles” (para 138). This corresponds to approximately 4.76 wt% based on the total weight of the green coke particles, the calcined coke particles, and the binder. Thus, the binder is present in the mixture in an amount of 1 wt% to 10 wt% with respect to a total weight of the green coke particles, the calcined coke particles, and the binder.
Regarding claim 10, Ann discloses the graphitization (heat treatment) is performed at a temperature of 3000°C (para 139).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20220077466 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ikeda et al. (US 20120119138 A1).
Regarding claim 2, An discloses D50 of the primary particles is 5.5 to 10.0 μm (para 16). An does not disclose the green coke particles have an average particle diameter (D50) of 9 μm to 15 µm, and the calcined coke particles have an average particle diameter (D50) of 3 µm to 8 µm. Ikeda discloses “green coke has an average particle diameter within a range of 5 to 15 µm and… calcined coke has an average particle diameter within a range of 5 to 15 µm (claim 6). Ikeda further teaches that particle sizes greater than 15 µm lowers energy efficiency (para 35). The claimed D50 range for green coke (9 μm to 15 µm) and calcined coke (3 µm to 8 µm) lies inside the range disclosed by Ikeda. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to apply particle-size of Ikeda to primary particles disclosed by An as selecting green coke and calcined coke particles with varying average particle diameter is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality demonstrated by the applicant (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda discloses “green coke particles with an average particle size of 9.9 μm” and “calcined coke particles with average particle size of 9.5 μm” (para 56-57). Accordingly, a ratio of the D50 of the calcined coke particles to the D50 of the green coke particles is approximately 0.95, which is 0.3 or greater and less than 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20220077466 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ibrahim (The Effect of Thermal Treatment on The True Density of Syrian Green Delayed Petroleum Coke)
Regarding claim 4, An does not disclose the true density of green coke particles. Ibrahim discloses “density is an important property of petroleum coke which is related to its structure and usage” and “the real density [true density] of green coke is usually in the range 1.2–1.6 g/cm3" (Density of Petroleum Coke). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to select green coke having true density within the disclosed range of 1.2-1.6 g/cm3 as doing such would have involved using a known property of green coke with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Ibrahim discloses calcined coke particles have a true density of 1.77 to 2.20 g/cm3 (Table 3). The range disclosed by Ibrahim overlaps with the claimed range of 1.80 g/cc to 2.25 g/cc. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20220077466 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Liu et al. (Variations in the True Density and Sulfur Removal Forms of Petroleum Coke during an Ultrahigh-Temperature Desulfurization Process).
Regarding claim 6, An does not disclose green coke particles comprise sulfur (S) in an amount of 1,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm. Liu discloses green coke contains sulfur and reports a sulfur content of 0.49 wt% (4900 ppm) for coke A (Table 1) which is within the claimed range. Liu further teaches sulfur content is a known property of green coke which affects its properties during thermal treatment (section 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the method of An by selecting green coke comprising sulfur in an amount of 4900 ppm as taught by Liu as doing such would have involved using a known property of green coke with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses coke A (green coke with 0.49 wt% sulfur) is calcined to 2500°C. Liu explicitly states “the sulfur weight losses due to sulfur release at 1900 °C were approximately 0.28” and after sulfur removal, the additional wight loss “were approximately 0.19 wt %” for coke A (Section 3.2). The total sulfur removal equaled 0.47 wt%. Liu reports the sulfur content for calcined coke as 0.02 wt% (200 ppm) which is within the claimed range (fig 3).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over An et al. (US 20220077466 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, optionally further in view of Xie at al. (CN111232969 A; see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, An discloses the secondary particles are graphitized for at least one hour (para 116), which overlaps with the claimed range of 40-60 hours and thus renders obvious the present claims (MPEP 2144.05).
In order to facilitate compact prosecution, the examiner additionally notes that Xie, drawn the negative electrode material for a lithium secondary battery art, discloses graphitization (heat treatment) time ranges from 24 to 48 hours (para 38). The graphitizing time disclosed by Xie overlaps with the claimed range. It has been held that in the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Thus, Xie further evidences the obvious the nature of the claimed graphitizing time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm.
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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights