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
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, claim(s) 12-19, drawn to an anode material comprising carbon particles.
Group II, claim(s) 20-21, drawn to a method of manufacturing the anode 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:
Group I and Group II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of an anode material comprising carbon particles (note: the compression onto a metal sheet and the wetting time can be achieved by the carbon particles and the placement on a metal sheet to make an anode layer is not required by the claim), this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 8,383,265 (Kang et al.). Kang et al. teaches graphitized carbon as the anode active material (col. 2, ll 51-75).
During a telephone conversation with Ryan Thompson on June 16, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 12-19. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 20-21 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).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: using 1,0 and 1,7 in the formula (p2 of the disclosure) (not standard American notation).
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: omitting a necessary semicolon before x3 when explaining the formula (p2 of the disclosure).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: omitting the definite “the dense and fast wetting” before “anode material layer” (line 3) (antecedent basis in lines 2-3). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: using 1,0 and 1,7 in the formula (not standard American notation). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: using tw for the wetting time (line 4), where the formula appears to have “w” as a subscript to “t.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: omitting a necessary semicolon before x3 when explaining the formula (last line). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: omitting the indefinite article ‘a’ before “sum” (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 2, 2024 has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received February 2, 2024 are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the claims, only an anode active material comprising carbon particles claimed. (The actual dense and fast wetting anode material layer with the specific wetting time is not required. Only that the active material is capable of being compressed (“can be compressed”, as claimed in claim 1) in a manner to form such a relationship.).
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 16 recites the limitation "the anode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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) 12-13, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 8,383,265 (Kang et al.).
As to claim 12, Kang et al. teach an anode material for a lithium ion battery (abs), wherein the anode material can be compressed onto a metal sheet (col. 7, lines25-32) to form a dense and fast wetting anode material layer, which anode layer has a density ρ in g/cm3 and a wetting time tw in seconds which is described by the following formula (I)
tw = x1 X (ρ -1,0) + x2 X e(x3 X (ρ-1,7))
wherein ρ is the density of the anode material compressed onto a metal sheet and x1 is between 50 and 158; x2 is between 3 and 130; x3 is between 13 and 45.
Regarding the capability of being compressed to a ρ to fit the claimed language, this limitation is either (a) inherent to the material, or (b) obvious.
With respect to (a): Inherency lies in the fact that the active material is the same, where wettability is desired (abs).
With respect to (b): If it is shown that Kang et al.’s material is incapable of being compressed to meet the density that is necessary to provide the wetting time, at the very least any differences would be small such that obviousness is achieved (due to the same material set forth, and wettability being desired) (abs).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to claim 13, Kang et al. teach carbon particles comprise graphite (graphitized) (abs; col. 7, ll 25-32).
As to claim 18, Kang et al. teach an electrode (col. 7, ll 25-32) comprising the anode material according to claim 12 (claim 12 set forth above; see the rejection of claim 12 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
As to claim 19, Kang et al. teach a battery (col. 7, line 10-1-43) comprising at least one electrode according to claim 18 (claim 18 set forth above; see the rejection of claim 18 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al., as applied to claim 12 above, in view of US 2021/0075004 (Hayashi et al.).
As to claim 14, Kang et al. teaches the use of surfactants in an anode for wettability (col. 3, ll 5-27).
Kang et al. do not teach using functional groups on the anode, wherein a sum of total functional groups of the anode material is less or equal to 10 µmol/g.
However, in the same field of endeavor (including an active material having carbon and wettability), Hayashi et al. teach of having 0.0004-0.0062 mmol (0.4-6.2 µmol/g, lies within claimed range) of acid functional groups to improve electrolyte wettability and thus load characteristics of the (para 0019). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) of having 0.0004-0.0062 mmol (0.4-6.2 µmol/g, lies within claimed range) of acid functional groups (as taught by Hayashi et al. and applied to Kang et al.) to improve electrolyte wettability and thus load characteristics of the battery. (Note: Although Hayashi et al.’s functional group is applied to the cathode, it is applicable to Kang et al., as both references are drawn towards improving electrode wettability (same purpose).)
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al., as applied to claim 12 above, in view of US 2019/02376763 (Wakizaka et al.).
As to claim 15, Kang et al. do not each the anode material has a distribution with 50% of the volume of the distribution with a circularity (s50) of 0.85 - 1.0.
However, Wakizaki et al. teach that spherical graphite has a median circularity of 0.90 or more, preferably 0.92 or more (para 0028, 0078) (lies within claim range). The motivation for having spherical graphite having a median circularity of (s50) 0.90 or more is to allow for high tap density by allowing for densely aligned particles, which results in high capacity and capacity retention, allowing for battery downsizing (para 0078, 0202). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have spherical graphite having a median circularity of (s50) 0.90 or more to allow for high tap density by allowing for densely aligned particles, which results in high capacity and capacity retention, allowing for battery downsizing.
As to claim 16, Kang et al. do not teach the anode has a distribution with 99% of the volume of distribution with a circularity (s99) of 0.95 to 1.
However, Wakizaki et al. teach that spherical graphite has a median circularity of 0.90 or more, preferably 0.92 or more (para 0028, 0078) (overlaps claim limitations 99% of the volume of distribution with a circularity (s99) of 0.95 to 1, thus renders it obvious). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to have spherical graphite having a median circularity of 0.90 or more to allow for high tap density by allowing for densely aligned particles, which results in high capacity and capacity retention, allowing for battery downsizing.
As to claim 17, Kang et al. do not teach the anode material has a ratio of tap density of tap 1500/tap 30 of 1.0 - 2.2.
However, Wakizaki et al. teach that spherical graphite has a median circularity of 0.90 or more, preferably 0.92 or more, which affects tap density (exemplified at 400 taps) (an expression for densely aligned graphite particles, which allows for an electrode stabilized by compression and results in an electrode suitable for charging and discharging (para 0028,0075, 0078-0080). Thus, although Wakizaki et al. does not specifically have a tap density ratio (at 30 and 1500 taps), the ratio would be either (a) expected or (b) obvious.
With respect to (a): Expectation lies in the fact that the active material rendered obvious is the same (regarding circularity, wherein a high tap density and packed particles desired).
With respect to (b): If it is shown that the material rendered obvious does not result in the same ratio of tap density of tap 1500/tap 30 (of 1-2.2), the very least any differences would be small such that obviousness is achieved (due to the same material set forth regarding circularity and a recognition of dense packing).
It has been held that when the difference between a claimed invention and the prior art is the range or value of a particular variable, then a prima facie rejection is properly established when the difference in the range or value is minor. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims that differ from the prior art only by slightly different (non-overlapping) ranges are prima facie obvious without a showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art. (In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935,1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990))
Also see MPEP §2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Note: No other prior art is considered pertinent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
