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 .
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.
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, 2, and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sotowa (WO 2020/116324 A1, cited by applicant) in view of Kamijo et al. (US 2019/0027754 A1, hereinafter Kamijo).
Re Claim 1. Sotowa teaches a negative electrode (abstract) for an energy storage device (intended use) comprising a negative active material layer (abstract) containing solid graphite (P3), wherein the solid graphite has an average circularity of 0.5 to 0.94 (P3), and the negative active material layer further contains carbon fine particles (P6).
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). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Sotowa fails to specifically teach that a ratio of an average pore size of the negative active material layer to the average particle size of the solid graphite is less than 0.14.
The invention of Kamijo encompasses non-aqueous lithium-type electricity storage element. Kamijo teaches that an average pore size of the negative active material layer is 2 to 20 nm (0.002 to 0.02 µm, para. 290).
In view of Kamijo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Sotowa to have an average pore size of the negative active material layer to be 2 to 20 nm (0.002 to 0.02 µm), since Kamijo teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to achieve satisfactory diffusion of the solvate lithium ion in the negative electrode active material layer and high energy density (para. 291).
The average pore size of the negative active material layer is 0.002 to 0.02 µm, while the average particle size of the solid graphite is 0.1 to 10 µm (Sotowa, P3). Therefore, a ratio of an average pore size of the negative active material layer to the average particle size of the solid graphite is 0.0002 to 0.2.
Re Claim 2. The combination teaches wherein the solid graphite has an average particle size of 0.1 to 10 µm (Sotowa, P3).
Re Claim 4. The combination teaches an energy storage device (Sotowa, abstract) comprising the negative electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1).
Re Claim 5. The combination teaches an energy storage device (Sotowa, abstract) comprising the negative electrode according to claim 2 (see rejection of Claim 2).
Re Claims 6 and 7. The combination teaches wherein the solid graphite has the average circularity of 0.5 to 0.94 (Sotowa, P3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly cited reference, Kamijo addresses the new limitation.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 4, regarding claims 6 and 7, applicant argued that Sotowa does not teach that the solid graphite has the average circularity of 0.6/0.5 or less, as Sotowa teaches the circularity of the graphite to be 0.5 or more, more preferably 0.6 or more, and further preferably 0.7 or more.
The examiner disagrees with this because Sotowa teaches that the solid graphite has the average circularity of 0.5 to 0.94, which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
10/11/2026
