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 .
The election is noted. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13, 20 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 ‘secondary’ (claims 1-4) is unclear as to what it refers. Does it refer to the gross macroscopic size as measured and reported (Cericola para 94 indicates that the ‘primary’ particle size is the measured macroscopic size)? Does it refer to a sub-structure? Does it refer to an agglomeration of identifiable particles (bananas on a stem)? See also Ishii et al. 20030022064. The claim is completely unclear.
The pressure unit of claim 1 is not correct; tons/cm2 appears intended.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Spahr et al. 7115221.
Spahr teaches, especially in col. 3 and ex. 5, graphite with density of 1.8-2.27 g/cc and D50 of 1-50 microns. Specifically, D10 of 3.7 microns and pressed (under 2.5 tons/cm2) density of 2.064. This yields a ratio of about 0.6 (claim 2) and since D1 is by definition less than D10, the actual ratio will be larger and thus meet the claim.
For claims 10-11, the D50 is 13.8 microns. The clause in claim 1 lines 3-5 is essentially a product-by-process limitation, as is the term ‘artificial’. Even though the compaction is not specified and the D values may be from a differing technique, no differences are seen.
Claims 1, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Stowell et al. 11107662.
Stowell teaches, especially in fig. 17p and q, and col. 39, graphite particles having a D1 of about 0.75-1 microns (by visual inspection) and density of 1.2-3 g/cc after pressurization under 12,000 psi (6 tons/inch2 or 0.93 tons/cm2). The ratio is greater than 1 and meets the claim.
Note that compression force is not required, and if performed would increase density by (for example) squeezing out air pockets. The clause in claim 1 lines 3-5 is essentially a product-by-process limitation, as is the term ‘artificial’. Even though the compaction is not specified and the D values may be from a differing technique, no differences are seen.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sudoh et al. 8920765.
The clause in claim 1 lines 3-5 is essentially a product-by-process limitation, as is the term ‘artificial’.
Sudoh teaches, especially in col. 13 lines 3-20, graphite for negative electrodes being pressed at 1-3 tons/cm2 and density of 1.7-1.9. Col. 6 lines 5-15 teach that the smallest particles should be 0.5 microns or more.
For claims 12, 13, see table 1 for capacity of 355 (comparative ex. 5).
For claims 10-11, comparative Ex 5 has D50 of 17.5.
Even though the compaction is not specified and the D values may be from a differing technique, no differences are seen.
Claims 1-8, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nishiwaka et al. 8367196.
The clause in claim 1 lines 3-5 is essentially a product-by-process limitation, as is the term ‘artificial’.
Nishikawa teaches a graphite having D1 of size of 1.981 microns (claims 7, 8) and density of 1.85 (claims 5-6); see Figs. 1, 2 and table 3. The ratio is 0.93 (claims 2-3). While compression is not taught, it would only increase the density. While the D values are size and not volume, these are related to the shape. No difference is seen even though the method of characterization is different. Even though the compaction is not specified and the D values may be from a differing technique, no differences are seen.
For claim 20, electrode is taught in col. 7; negative is obvious to exploit its properties.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. 20130330620.
Nishimura teaches, especially in paras 51 and 131, graphite for negative electrodes. Fig. 4 shows 20-25 micron particles. The D10 is 0.5-5 microns and density is 1.7-1.9 (claims 5-6). When the particle size is small (noting that D1 is by definition smaller than D10), the ratio is met. Essentially, the ranges defacto overlap, rendering the claims (especially 2-3) obvious.
For claims 7-9, the claimed size is obvious, as explained in paras 48 and 68.
As the aspect ratio is about 1 (ie, a sphere, see para 65), the size and volume ratios are mathematically related, so measuring one is tantamount to measuring the other.
For claims 10-11, the D50 specificc values are from 13.5-20 (table 3).
For claims 12-13, table 4 reports capacities of 354 and 362.
For claim 20, using the graphite in a negative electrode is obvious to exploit its properties.
Claims 1-6, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cericola et al. 20180254119.
Cericola teaches, especially in table 8, ground graphite having D10 of 2.3 microns (so D1 is by definition smaller) and in figs. 7 and 8 density of 1-2.25 (claims 5-6) depending on the exact example of carbon hybrid. Thus, the ratio overlaps the claimed range.
For claims 10-11, the D50 is 18.7.
Figure 7 establishes that increasing pressure increases the density.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stowell.
Stowell, above, does not explicitly teach the claimed parameters.
For claims 2, 3, the values may arrive at 1.2 due to the overlap of the ranges.
For claims 5-6, the ranges overlap.
Claims 7-9, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sudoh.
Sudoh, above, does not tech the specific values claimed.
For claims 7-9, small sizes are suggested and thus obvious
For claim 20, using the graphite in a negative electrode is obvious to exploit its properties.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spahr.
Spahr, above, does not teach the D1 to permit exact calculation, however grinding (and thus creating small dust particles) is obvious to attain the desired particle size, and hence the ratio; see col 3 lines 17-26.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights